This past Monday, Governor Christine Gregoire signed into law a bill that we here in Washington are calling the “Everything But Marriage” act. The full text is here. Here’s the digest version:
SB 5688 declares that for all purposes under state law, state registered domestic partners shall be treated the same as married spouses. Any privilege, immunity, right, benefit, or responsibility granted or imposed by statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other law to an individual because the individual is or was a spouse, or because the individual is or was an in-law in a specified way to another individual, is granted on equivalent terms, substantive and procedural, to an individual because the individual is or was in a state registered domestic partnership or because the individual is or was, based on a state registered domestic partnership, related in a specified way to another individual.
Provides that the act shall be liberally construed to achieve equal treatment, to the extent not in conflict with federal law, of state registered domestic partners and married spouses.
— Washington State Bill 5688
The bill won’t become law until July 26. This is because a bunch of civic-minded folks are busily trying to gather enough signatures (more than 120,000) to put a referendum on the November ballot to undo the passage of this bill. If they get the signatures, the bill won’t become law until the November vote. Or never, depending on how it goes.
Right now I don’t think the CMFs have enough clout to overturn it. And frankly, they aren’t doing their larger causes any favors by making such a fuss over it, but that’s their problem.
Nicola and I are among Washington’s more than 5,300 registered domestic partner couples. Since early in our relationship, we’ve been accumulating all the legal documents that people who can’t get married need to protect ourselves, our property, and our access/responsibilities to each other. But it’s good to have our rights not because we paid thousands of dollars in legal fees to secure them, but because we are adult citizens of the state sharing in a pool of rights accessible to any adults who want to make a commitment to each other.
At least that’s how I hope it’ll be come July 26.
I hope for this as well, as part of that 5 300 number.
It’s about time. It’s that word equal. It means equal protection under the law.
Lillian and I are registered here too, and we’re interested to see not only how this plays out — and I’ve encouraged people to sign the “No on 71” petition — but how things play out in California, since we got married there.
Change is coming, and from a historical perspective it’s coming quickly, but sometimes it certainly doesn’t feel that way.
And now there’s New York.
This was cheering after the New Hampshire bill stalled yesterday. : ) I hope it happens.
Actually, I’d be curious to know what Kelley, or anyone else, thinks about the New Hampshire bill. It stalled because the governor demanded that it specify that religious organizations could not be forced to marry someone they don’t want to. “State Rep. Steve Vaillancourt, a gay Republican from Manchester, said an earlier bill that did not provide protections to clerics or religious groups was the one that should have been passed, adding that the amended bill would allow discrimination to be written into state law.”
I’m not sure where I stand on that…certainly, I want and expect to eventually win the larger culture “war” too, but in the legal war, I don’t see any rights gay people lose by having religious groups protected from prosecution, except the right to frivolous and possibly unethical lawsuits. But I may be missing something.
I for one am simply sick to death of religious ideology (mostly Christian) dictating laws in our so-called secular country. I live in WI where a constitutional thing passed that called marriage the 1 man/1 woman thing. Now the govenor has worked in an equivalent domestic partnership registration thing – similar to what’s posted here. My fingers are crossed that it will get “passed”. Way too much time is wasted on idiotic religious crap – just look at how they’ve twisted the abortion issue into something non-sensical as well.
I’ve never wanted to get married (to one anything!) but damn it – we’ll get registered if it passes just to show that we’re out there, paying our way and needing all of the same protections.
Hmm. I think the point for me is that this is a country based on a Constitution and Bill of Rights that focus on a rule of law, not a rule of religion. In other words, legal principle trumps religious principle. And so in this country, although people are legally free to any form of religious expression (I know, don’t get me started right now on all the ways that’s not always true), religious institutions are not free to be above the law.
Religions may not support the idea of marriage equality: but religious institutions are not allowed to do anything that violates a legal right, including the right of equality.
This is a country of law. Churches have to obey those laws just like all the rest of us. Sometimes it sucks. Sometimes we must choose between one freedom and another. But the Constitution makes it crystal clear that this country is structured to separate church and state: and to me that says the state is paramount, not the church.
Do I personally believe that the Catholic Church should be made to suck it up and officiate a wedding ceremony that goes against everything they stand for? Nope. But that is a legal issue, not an issue of my personal empathy for the rock versus the hard place.
It’s ultimately a Constitutional issue for the Supreme Court. The governor of NH is out of line to take it upon himself to re-interpret the Constitution in an effort to exempt the church from the requirements of the state.
My 2 cents.
Hm. All good points, though I’m still tentatively inclined to think that the equality movement is shooting itself in the foot to no great purpose. But thank you for helping me understand the opposition! It had been completely mystifying to me before.
Bravo, Kelley! I wish I’d said it.